Seeking Signs of Ancient Martian Life

StonyandCher writes in about a collaboration between NASA and a leading Australian exploration and mining scientist, Dr. Brent McInnes, to search for signs of ancient life on Mars. The plan is to develop and miniaturize the "Alphachron" — an exploration technology currently employed by the Australian minerals industry to determine the age of minerals. If the Alphachron can be miniaturized, it could fly with the next rover mission set for launch in 2010. "The highest priority is to understand when liquid water was present on Mars. 'The same minerals that can be found in [Western Australia]... can also be found on Mars,' McInnes said. Accordingly, by using the Alphachron to date minerals on Mars and thus tell when liquid water may have been present, it can be inferred when life may have been sustainable near the surface of the planet."

why they always think water == life?

Most life evolved based on water in our planet, because there's a lot of it here... that doesn't mean life couldn't have evolved based on hidrogen, or methane, or whatever substance is abundant on a specific planet.

Even on our planet, living creatures have

Re:why they always think water == life?

I cant rember where i read about it, but theres quite an interesting concept about life on a neutron star (where it would be based about nuclear interactions instead of electronic interaction, somewhere. I think it was probably sci-fi but it is a cool concept.

Generally people consider water essential to life because:
Chemical based life forms are much more likely than nuclear or gravitation based life forms (too small or too slow)
Carbon based life is much more likely than non-carbon based life
Carbon based life depends on water for alot of interactions (mainly due to hydrogen bonding)
Considering non-carbon life forms, if life where nitrogen based, it would probably also depend on water
There is the possibility of phosphorus based life (which would probably be hydrophobic tho)
The possibility of silicon based life also exists (which wouldn't depend on water)

Re:

From what we know now you need a good solvent. Ammonia is a potential candidate. Hydrogen is not. Methane could be used for respiration in conjunction with life that evolved in ammonia.

Of course, there's plenty we do not know and it's always possible, b

Venusian Life

When the solar system was cooling, both Venus and the Earth were probably in similar states. There is the possibility that oceans too formed on Venus, many billions of years ago. Of course now it's hell incarnate, but it may have been able to birth life eons ago.

The title says: "Aussie Technology to help NASA"

It does the same experiment that the 1970s initial Mars Landers did.
The signs then were inconclusive and will be inconclusive because: We look at other planets with the same glasses we look at Earth.
Heck even on earth, we are still surprised daily by new findings of life we thought could not support life.
And these were detected after so many years and with so good tools.
What makes you say a rover-sized tincan will magically detect past life on Mars?
Has life detection techniques improved so fast in 30 years?
Get about 10 kgs of Mars soil from various locations to Earth orbit (ISS) and let the ISS search it for life.
Stop wasting money and sending tincans all over again.

The Article is Off-Base

First of all, no this is not the same experiment the Viking landers did in the 1970's. The Viking landers carried cameras, meterology instruments, a sampling arm, a seismometer, and a small biology experiment. You're probably thinking of the last one. The results were inconclusive because they realized after the fact there were factors they didn't control for that more than likely spoiled the results. This does not mean that these factors can't be effectively controlled for.

But that doesn't matter, because the article isn't talking about looking for life now (although I'm not sure the author realizes that). Neither Mars Exploration Rovers currently on Mars nor the Mars Science Laboratory due to launch at the end of next year will really be looking for life.

The instrument (alphachron) referred to in the article is used to date mineral deposits. The MER's established with a fairly high degree of confidence that liquid water existed on Mars in the past, based partially on the presence of certain types of minerals. If alphachron is flown on a mission, it will be used to determine the age of these deposits, thereby constraining when liquid water, and perhaps providing some key insights over how Mars evolved.

I'm almost certain the article is off-base in suggesting this instrument might fly on the Mars Science Laboratory, which will launch towards the end of 2009 and arrive in 2010. It's not currently manifested, and since assembly is taking place right now and instruments have already been eliminated to keep the project under-mass and not too far over-budget, I can't believe there's any chance of it flying on MSL.

It's also not currently listed on the manifest for Europe's ExoMars rover, to launch in 2013, but I don't think its payload is currently set in stone. The next NASA opportunity under the current plans is the 2016 Mars Astrobiology Field Lab, but Alphachron doesn't sound very complementary to the goals of that mission.

Sadly, a lot of good instruments get developed, but never fly due to priorities and engineering constraints. This may end up being such a case, but at least it has commercial applications outside the space program.

I just don't understand scientists.

Ancient Martian life? Why bother? All they'd do is show you pictures of their grand kids and talk about how great Mars used to be. What they should be doing is looking for some young, sexy, teenage martians. For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

Has it really been so long since the original Star Trek aired that scientists have forgotten that the primary goal of space exploration is to find hot alien women to have sex with? I'm willing to forgive science for failing to deliver on its promises of flying cars and personal jetpacks, but if I don't have harem of hot alien babes soon, then I am going to be FUCKING PISSED.

Re:

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

Which explains the poisonous atmosphere.

Re:I just don't understand scientists.

True, but I'm talking practicalities here. For whatever reason, probably a good two thirds majority of scientists are heterosexual men, so it's only fair that the main goal should be finding beautiful, three-breasted, venusian astro-nymphs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know gay scientists and lady scientists need space-lovin' too, but we've got to stay focused.

Plenty of evidence

Plenty of evidence for ancient life on mars, and the moon for that matter.
I remember seeing websites that showed ruined buildings on both as well as many other anomalies that scientists (read closed mind almost like religious freaks, scared of speaking out as they're funding would get cut) dismissed. Keep an open mind when you look on the net for this stuff

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

It's important because it would be our first chance to essentially witness the demise of a once habitable planet, its along the same lines as the immense amount of energy spent on trying to figure out how, where, and why the dinosaurs died.

Its all very interesting, even if for day-today life, its really quite insignificant. Especially considering the same effects that have happened to Mars, could very plausibly happen to Earth aswell even if its not for many more millenium (Millenia?)

And building bases on Mars wont really destroy all the information instantaniously, only dismiss some methods of gathering information.

Re:

Looking at Google's three-layered Mars [google.com] map: dunno how they determined their 'zero' with the elevations, but it looks like there are significantly more meteor craters on the 'above zero elevation' parts of the map (Surface water = insulation from meteor imp

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

I think the point is to see if anything has developed on Mars before we go there and contaminate the environment, thereby making it impossible to determine if what is found came with us to Mars or was pre-existing.

Czech out the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Ann in those books makes a very good argument on that basis.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

WHHHHHHHHAT?! C'mon dude.

So you're not the least bit interested if they share the same characteristics as us, such as: DNA, amino acids, organelles, etc, etc?

There are a million and one things I'd prefer to see from life on Mars before I ever knew the location of water (if it exists). I know what water looks like, but extra-terrestrial life, I have no idea.

Finding life = also important

If we find an instance of life anywhere that is not on earth then it is highly significant.
It will help us to understand a little better the variables in the Drake equation.

PETM

PETM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Martians) will focus its attention on whatever means of harming innocent Martians humanity may conceive. We will educate, protest, legislate, and even rescue Martians, with an undying dedication to preserving the

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

Finding life is important for at least three reasons. First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase.

Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?

Finally, scientific curiosity. It's just darned interesting to know these things for the sake of knowing them. What's Martian life like? Is it going to kill every human who sets foot on the planet? Might it yield valuable insights into how life evolved here?

I guarantee, if we find life on Mars there will be people who will disagree with you about who owns it. After all, manifest destiny was a great idea unless you were a Native American.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

Believe it or not, there are whole areas of science NOT concerned with finding more land, killing off the inhabitants, and consuming all the local resources. Finding life on Mars, or the evidence of past life, would impact so many areas of human life, it's hard to really fathom them all. Every expert in religion to biology would weigh in, not to mention the psychologists as we assimilate this new though suspected information into our collective psyche. If it was past life, then what happened to it? What level of complexity did it reach? Was there ever anything close to what we are, as a species?

In fact, finding evidence of life from either the present or the past would be a prime factor in just how much we DO colonize the place. It's all well and good to think we would just bulldoze the area level and set about building, but what if the life is microbial and the wee beasties kill us off?

Sticking a shovel in the Martian surface is NOT the same as it is on Earth, where at least we have a fairly solid understanding of what we are likely to encounter. I, for one, would want to know all about whatever might be living there, past or present, before I build a shelter in which I will shower, use the toilet, etc.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

Take a look around you folks -- this is our planet. We're stuck here. Get used to it.

Stuck here for how long?

20 years? 50? 1000?

It's no reason to stop investigation. Your line of reasoning can be compared to saying studying distant galaxies is useless because we won't reach them anytime soon.

Maybe you find researching new forms of energy is useless because the petrol we still have will last at least for your life's length.

Climate change? The earth will most probably endure us for a couple hundred years, leave the investigation to our sons.

Exploring Mars may be useless if you're looking for instant rewards, but sooner or later we'll establish colonies there.

Maybe only jump bases for longer trips. Maybe sun energy collectors. Maybe "martian soy" production fields with robotic managers that regularly send the crop back to Earth. Who knows?

The problem with investigation is precisely that you need to start to be able to know where you're really going; sometimes you even reach a completely unexpected benefit.

And still, life's quite better now than in the 13th century.

Re:

It is inferior to Earth in every possible way.

It's still available. You don't have to kill anyone (well, except for some microbes, maybe) for it. (Yes, yes, I know. Killing people and taking their stuff takes much, much less energy than getting anything t

Re:

I find it very interesting that all negative comments to finding life on Mars have been modded down. Seems to me that certain people don't like criticism or contrary opinions.

Re:

I find it very interesting that all negative comments to finding life on Mars have been modded down. Seems to me that certain people don't like criticism or contrary opinions.

When I have mod points, I rarely mod things down. However, I think that the othe

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

You're missing the point.

Here's a scenario: Someone says, "I want to do X. Here are some thoughts/plans that I've put together for accomplishing my goal. Please help me refine my plans and give me constructive criticism."

Response A: "Don't do that. Your idea is stupid/doomed to fail/a waste of time. Here is a list of reasons why you shouldn't do it."

Response B: "Well, I may not agree with the overall premise, but there are some interesting ideas. Here are some thoughts of my own about how to refine your plans. For example, you're working from flawed assumptions here and here ..."

Do you see the difference? Do you see why response A is seen as not contributing to the discussion? Anyone can quickly come up with reasons why something is not worth doing. It takes time and thought to actually contribute to a discussion.

For example, I could have just called you a stupid hoser and left it at that. But instead, I decided to try and contribute to the discussion. I'm not sure I added much signal to the noise (especially since it's off-topic), but I'm trying.

Response C: ""

And finally, there's the "didn't your mother teach you that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" approach. By "nice", I mean constructive. There's nothing wrong with ignoring something that you don't agree with.

This is Slashdot, not Congress. No one is deciding on funding for NASA here. You can rant all you want on Slashdot, but I can guarantee you that your congress-critters aren't going to read your pithy screed about why Mars colonization is a bad idea.

Re:Minerals = Funding

If you land on Mars you have to expend lots of energy to get off, whereas if you mine the asteroids, it's a lot cheaper.

We're doing things the wrong way.

Steps should be:
1) Space station with artificial gravity (classic spinning wheel, or stuff on tether)
2) Space station with artificial gravity and decent radiation shielding
3) Figure out how to build space stations from asteroid materials
4) Send space stations to asteroid belts or wherever.
5) Space colonies.

Whereas right now, there's crazy talk of
1) Space trip to Mars

That sure sounds like a one way trip. That's only worth the $$$$ if we can vote for politicians to send on that one way trip. Do that regularly and it'll be a net benefit to the world ;).

Re:

We have martian rocks on Earth, and so there surely are a lot of earth rocks on Mars.

That doesn't really follow. It is much harder to blast debris out of Earth's gravity well than the smaller one of Mars, and the greater atmospheric pressured here adds another serious difficulty. Perhaps some material from the larger impacts on Earth ma